There's been a lot of hoopla, but no real repercussions regarding the
Downing Street memo's release to the media. Why not?
For some people, I get the impression that the point is moot. We're in Iraq, the bed is made, and now we have to learn to sleep with bed bugs, right?
I disagree.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. How can George W. Bush be any less accountable for lying to Congress? For going on national television and lying to American citizens? For slanting (and witholding) information in such a way as to lead people to believe he was telling the truth?
Is it because he didn't put his hand on a bible and swear?
What Bush has done is far more heinous. This, I argue, is exactly the problem. Bush did lie, and
so far 1,702 Americans have died for his falsehoods. He not only should be held accountable, he must be held accountable. The fact he didn't have his hand on the bible is irrelevant. After all, this president says he acts on divine inspiration.
"God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them." - taken from the minutes of a meeting among top level Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and reported in the June 26th edition of Ha'aretz (Isreal's most respected newspaper).
I get the impression that the American public, while curious and unsurprised by what the Downing Street memos reveal, don't truly understand the full ramifications. For those of you a little hazy with the year 2002 (I include myself in this category), let me give you a refresher of things as they happened, and where the memo fits into this:
JULY 22, 2002 - The Downing Street memo is actually the minutes recorded by a high level British Intelligence official at that meeting.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Doesn't that last sentence resonate? Remarkable. So what does this mean?
This means that prior to July 22, 2002, the British believed that Bush hadn't yet decided on a course of war in Iraq, but that AFTER this meeting, he had. Now on to the rest of the dates to understand its' place in the scheme of things:
January 29, 2002:
In Bush's state of the union speech, he identifies Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as an 'axis of evil' and vows that the U.S. 'will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.'
May 14, 2002:
The UN Security Council revamps the sanctions against Iraq (now eleven years old), replacing them with "smart sanctions" meant to allow more civillian goods to enter the country while at the same time more effectively restricting military and dual-use equipment (military and civilian).
June 2, 2002:
Bush publicly introduces new defence doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one.
"Our security will require all Americans... [to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and defend our lives" - Bush reminds at U.S. Military Academy Commencement, West Point, NY, 6/1/02
September 12, 2002:
Bush addresses the UN, challenging the organization to swiftly enforce its own resolutions. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. will have no choice but to act on its own against Iraq.
October 11, 2002:
Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.
This is where Congress legalizes what Bush wants to do, but is not when Bush declares war. That is even later. However, let me bring your attention to the wording of the Iraq Resolution that Congress approved:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; - 2002 Iraq War Resolution
Even then, Congress was trying to stipulate that Bush was supposed to work with the UN first.
The resolution itself isn't as unanimous as the Administration would lead you to believe, either. Unfortunately, a lot of Congressional members got caught up, post 9/11, in trying to keep America united, even if they had their own reservations about what Bush was saying. Ironic, isn't it?
By the way, what I'm speaking of regarding the Downing Street memos doesn't begin to address the
faulty information put before Congress by the Bush administration.
This post is strictly a timeline to remind you of a sequence of events. There's more, of course, in the dance the UN and the U.S. did prior to declaring war, but for the sake of brevity, I'll skip that, for now. Follow the links for more detailed information. Then keep in mind the following:
March 19, 2003:
This is when Bush declares war on Iraq. This is why the rest of the world is in an uproar, and America should be, too.
The greatest irony is that a man who declares himself profoundly religious should prove to the most disasterous president this country has ever seen, both at home and abroad.
In a time when wearing the cloak of religious piety has become a near-requirement for membership to Republican Congress, the current President of the United States has become the greatest proof that religious belief is NOT a guarantee of personal intergrity.
